IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 31 of 2007()
1. V.K.KRISHNAN KUTTY,
... Petitioner
2. RADHA KRISHNAN KUTTY,
Vs
1. M.MAHUDEESWARAN, S/O. MURUKESAN,
... Respondent
2. P.CHIDAMBARAN,
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.K.CHANDRASEKHARADAS(RETD. JUDGE)
SHRI P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAY (RETD.DIST.JUDGE
Dated :25/02/2010
O R D E R
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.K.CHANDRASEKHARA DAS
(RETIRED JUDGE)
AND
SRI. P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI
(RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE)
......................................
M.A.C.A NO. 31OF 2007
......................................
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010
A W A R D
It has been agreed that the Insurance Company will
pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty five thousand only)
over and above what has been awarded by the court below.
If the Insurance Company fails to pay the said amount
within two months the said amount will carry interest @ 9%
per annum.
Award is passed accordingly.
Sd/-
T.K.CHANDRASEKHARADAS
(RETIRED JUDGE)
Sd/-
P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI
(RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE)
//True copy//
PA to Judge
rkc
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+Bail Appl..No. 964 of 2010()
#1. SANTHOSH, S/O.KUNJUMON,
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
! For Petitioner :SRI.S.M.ALTHAF
^ For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
% Dated :22/02/2010
: O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
———————————————
B.A.No.964 of 2010
———————————————
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the
accused in Crime No.122 of 2009 of Kambammettu Police
Station.
2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The de facto complainant belongs to a scheduled
caste. It is stated that the accused also belongs to a scheduled
caste. The de facto complainant is aged 28 years. In the petition
filed by the de facto complainant, it is stated that the accused
took her to different places on the promise to marry her. Later,
the brothers of the petitioner, threatened the accused and the
de facto complainant and forcibly took away the accused to his
house. The de facto complainant became pregnant. A petition
was filed by the de facto complainant before the District
Superintendent of Police. Accordingly, the crime was registered,
BA No.964/2010 2
on forwarding the petition to the Sub Inspector of Police,
Kasaragod.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
even going by the averments in the petition filed by the de facto
complainant, no offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code is made out. At best, the offence would be under Section
493 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even
though the offence comes under Section 493 IPC, it is non
bailable and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
6. While disposing of this Bail Application, it is not
necessary to decide whether the ingredients would constitute an
offence under Section 376 IPC or whether Section 493 IPC alone
would be attracted. In either case, I do not think that the facts
and circumstances of the case would justify the grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner. I am of the view that the
petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation
of the petitioner may be necessary during investigation. If
BA No.964/2010 3
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely
affect the proper investigation of the case.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl